Power To Attest/Annul Mutation Is Quasi-Judicial, Natural Justice Must Be Adhered To While Invoking It: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized that the authority to attest or annul a mutation is quasi-judicial in nature. Such authority, vested in Revenue Officers, must be exercised in strict compliance with the J&K Land Revenue Act, ensuring an opportunity for the affected parties to be heard in line with natural justice principles, the court underscored.“The power...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized that the authority to attest or annul a mutation is quasi-judicial in nature. Such authority, vested in Revenue Officers, must be exercised in strict compliance with the J&K Land Revenue Act, ensuring an opportunity for the affected parties to be heard in line with natural justice principles, the court underscored.
“The power to attest a mutation as also the power to set aside the mutation, is quasi judicial in nature. This power is to be exercised by a Revenue Officer strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the J&K Land Revenue Act and that too after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party by adhering to the principles of natural justice”, a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar remarked.
These observations came while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner, Mohd Latif had challenged an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Poonch, which declared null and void the revenue entries related to his property. The disputed property, spanning 23 kanals, had mutations in his favor based on Government Orders LB-6/C of 1958 and S-432 of 1966. The petitioner claimed the Deputy Commissioner's decision violated due process as it was issued without any notice or adherence to procedural requirements.
The petitioner asserted that the Deputy Commissioner acted beyond authority by canceling the mutations without following the procedures set by the J&K Land Revenue Act. He claimed his right to a hearing was disregarded, violating natural justice.
The respondents argued that the disputed land was forest land, making any mutation in favor of the petitioner void under the relevant government orders. They maintained that adherence to natural justice would not alter the outcome, as the mutations were illega from inception, citing prior directions from the Division Bench in Prof. S.K. Bhalla v. State and Others.
Court Observations:
Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Dhar underscored that the Deputy Commissioner had overstepped statutory limitations. Citing Sections 11, 13, and 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, the Court clarified the hierarchical powers for appeals, reviews, and revisions and observed that the Deputy Commissioner could act only if an appeal had been filed, which was not the case here.
Commenting on the Review powers under Section the court said that while a Revenue Officer may review orders, such powers require notice to the affected party, which was not provided to the petitioner.
On the Revisional Powers under Section 15 the court said that the Revision powers rest with higher authorities, not the Deputy Commissioner, making his annulment of the mutations an overreach.
Justice Dhar highlighted that canceling mutations is a quasi-judicial act requiring strict adherence to statutory procedures and natural justice and stressed that a hearing opportunity is essential, as assumptions about the outcome do not justify bypassing due process.
Pointing out that the Deputy Commissioner's unilateral action to nullify the mutation orders, without authority or notice, displayed arbitrary conduct and violated the petitioner's rights under the principles of natural justice.
In view of the same the Court set aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, deeming it unsustainable. It clarified, however, that the respondents could pursue appropriate legal remedies.
Case Title: Mohd Latif Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 304